I know this thread will rapidly degenerate into partisan bickering so I'll make my point.

Trent Lott was on the radio this morning and he'd just gotten back from visiting with some of his constituents. One of the things they wanted to complain about was gas prices.

When he asked them about supply, and about drilling US sources of oil, they said "not in my backyard".

When he asked them whether they were willing to conserve they said "you're asking me to get rid of my SUV?"

The problem with this country is not liberal or conservative. It's not political at all.

The general populace of this country is selfish, stupid, and spoiled ****ing rotten.

Simplex3

08-26-2005, 07:11 AM

Damn straight. Did you mention stupid?

You know, it suprises people to think about this despite the fact that you already know it:

Half the population is dumber than the average person. Let that soak in when you're thinking about letting everyone vote.

htismaqe

08-26-2005, 07:14 AM

Stupidity is the least of our worries.

The spoiled, childish nature or our "me first" society is what the biggest problem is.

Somewhere over time the "pursuit of happiness" became "I've got to get me mine".

Simplex3

08-26-2005, 07:17 AM

Somewhere over time the "pursuit of happiness" became "I've got to get me mine".
Correction: It became "You've got to give me mine."

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 07:18 AM

'mage

:clap:

You get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And so, it seems, does Lott.

The energy crisis' cause can be found in our own mirrors.

Perhaps Lott can provide some leadership on the issue. My entire perception of the man just did a quick 180. At least he is talking about it.

Brock

08-26-2005, 07:19 AM

People may complain about high gas prices. But they still buy it just as readily as they did when it was 1 dollar per gallon, so why should the price come down?

jiveturkey

08-26-2005, 07:21 AM

Agreed.

I work with a sales person that drives 20 miles to work and averages 250 miles per week for client visits and he drives a V8 SUV. No kids, no wife and no pets.

And he complains about gas prices!!!

I drive 1.5 miles to work when I'm not working from home and I drive a 4 cylinder Camry that I've decked out with a high flow air filter and fully synthetic oil.

And I complain about gas prices!!! :p

jiveturkey

08-26-2005, 07:22 AM

Perhaps Lott can provide some leadership on the issue. My entire perception of the man just did a quick 180. At least he is talking about it.I was impressed with him on the Daily Show the other night.

morphius

08-26-2005, 07:27 AM

"The not in my backyard" makes it difficult to get anything done in this country. I mean seriously, look at CA as a perfect example. How many powerplants have they built in the last couple of dacades versus the amount of population that has grown.

htismaqe

08-26-2005, 07:32 AM

It was interesting because after they gave the first two answers, he asked them "so you want the government to step in and mandate this then, since you won't make a decision yourselves?"

He said the audience hemmed and hawed and never did answer...

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 07:37 AM

"The not in my backyard" makes it difficult to get anything done in this country. I mean seriously, look at CA as a perfect example. How many powerplants have they built in the last couple of dacades versus the amount of population that has grown.

The "not in my backyard" is a worry, but not the largest one.

The larger problem is that we have, or are periously close, to having used half of all the oil in existence. The downhill slope will be quite bumpy.

Drastic conservation measures, huge alternative energy initiatives, nuke plants, new drilling ALL must begin taking place on a much larger scale, immediately.

If not, we are screwed.

jiveturkey

08-26-2005, 07:38 AM

It was interesting because after they gave the first two answers, he asked them "so you want the government to step in and mandate this then, since you won't make a decision yourselves?"

He said the audience hemmed and hawed and never did answer...Rabble, Rabble, Rabble!!!

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 07:39 AM

It was interesting because after they gave the first two answers, he asked them "so you want the government to step in and mandate this then, since you won't make a decision yourselves?"

He said the audience hemmed and hawed and never did answer...

'mage, can you post the station where that was played. I would like to read a transcript.

I may send him a contribution.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 07:40 AM

The larger problem is that we have, or are periously close, to having used half of all the oil in existence. The downhill slope will be quite bumpy.

Ridiculous...

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 07:45 AM

Titus:

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Do some reading.

I would suggest Matthew Simmons (conservative) and Richard Duncan (liberal).

Both say the same thing, as do many others.

Look up the Ovuldai Gorge theory.

Look up Peak oil.

Look up Colin Campbell and Carl Hubbert.

Just do the reading. Then we can talk about my "ridiculousness."

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 07:50 AM

Titus:

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Do some reading.

I would suggest Matthew Simmons (conservative) and Richard Duncan (liberal).

Both say the same thing, as do many others.

Look up the Ovuldai Gorge theory.

Look up Peak oil.

Look up Colin Campbell and Carl Hubbert.

Just do the reading. Then we can talk about my "ridiculousness."

No thanks, Im not in the environmental panic business, rather, Im a person who knows that a market economy/demand will find a new solution.

Brock

08-26-2005, 07:52 AM

No thanks, Im not in the environmental panic business, rather, Im a person who knows that a market economy/demand will find a new solution.

We'll probably need that oil to power our boats when most of the US is underwater. Think, man! Haven't you ever seen water world?

Duck Dog

08-26-2005, 07:53 AM

These people are idiots. Who wouldn't want to have an oil well in their back yard?

jiveturkey

08-26-2005, 07:56 AM

We'll probably need that oil to power our boats when most of the US is underwater. Think, man! Haven't you ever seen water world?That was the worst documentary ever!

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 07:59 AM

No thanks, Im not in the environmental panic business, rather, Im a person who knows that a market economy/demand will find a new solution.

Ahh, another follower of the religion of the corporate free market. Which, in itself, is an oxymoron.

Who doesn't even want to hear another opinion.

Good God, what they teach in business schools these days...

Did you take communion before you graduated?

penguinz

08-26-2005, 08:02 AM

The larger problem is that we have, or are periously close, to having used half of all the oil in existence.
This is just an educated guess by the "experts". It is also a guess based upon the current oil wells. There are many oil deposits that are not drilled or even known about yet.

Brock

08-26-2005, 08:03 AM

This is just an educated guess by the "experts". It is also a guess based upon the current oil wells. There are many oil deposits that are not drilled or even known about yet.

Not only that, but a large amount of oil is currently classified as "unrecoverable". At some point, that oil will be accessed.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 08:04 AM

Ahh, another follower of the religion of the corporate free market. Which, in itself, is an oxymoron.

Who doesn't even want to hear another opinion.

Good God, what they teach in business schools these days...

Did you take communion before you graduated?

Yeah, it sucks, but it's better than any other economic system. You're welcome.

jiveturkey

08-26-2005, 08:04 AM

This is just an educated guess by the "experts". It is also a guess based upon the current oil wells. There are many oil deposits that are not drilled or even known about yet.I don't buy into the idea that we're running on the down hill side of oil supplies but isn't your statement about unknown oil deposits just as much of a guess?

jiveturkey

08-26-2005, 08:05 AM

Not only that, but a large amount of oil is currently classified as "unrecoverable". At some point, that oil will be accessed.
This I can belive because we know it's there.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 08:05 AM

This is just an educated guess by the "experts". It is also a guess based upon the current oil wells. There are many oil deposits that are not drilled or even known about yet.

Not really. It is, however, an educated guess, by experts of the oil left to be discovered.

Hubbert, for example, argued that peak oil would happen in the US in the early 1970's. He was right.

We now import to make up the difference. And have since the mid 1970's.

The problem really is that oil is the perfect energy producer. Lot's of sun packed in the black stuff. We have yet to find anything close.

Brock & Jive: On recoverable oil.

The problem there is that it takes much more energy to recover the oil than it does "light sweet crude." In some cases (such as the oil sands) it takes as much energy to recover it as the oil gives in energy.

Duck Dog

08-26-2005, 08:06 AM

Ahh, another follower of the religion of the corporate free market. Which, in itself, is an oxymoron.

Who doesn't even want to hear another opinion.

Good God, what they teach in business schools these days...

Did you take communion before you graduated?

Corporate America built this country on the backs of the under educated. Without either of them, we wouldn't be any better off then the 3rd world sewer holes.

penguinz

08-26-2005, 08:07 AM

I don't buy into the idea that we're running on the down hill side of oil supplies but isn't your statement about unknown oil deposits just as much of a guess?
You act as though we have always known exactly where to find oil. Do you seriously think we have already discovered all of them?

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 08:11 AM

Corporate America built this country on the backs of the under educated.

I guess that explains old's anger at corporations...he did all the work.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 08:13 AM

Corporate America built this country on the backs of the under educated. Without either of them, we wouldn't be any better off then the 3rd world sewer holes.

This thread is about oil, however, your statement is loaded with assumptions that are not true.

I am not a fan of multinational corporate globalization.

I am a fan of capitalism.

Adam Smith, as well as T. Jefferson, by the the way, would vehemently disagree with you.

jiveturkey

08-26-2005, 08:13 AM

You act as though we have always known exactly where to find oil. Do you seriously think we have already discovered all of them?I don't believe that but it is technically just a guess.

htismaqe

08-26-2005, 08:14 AM

'mage, can you post the station where that was played. I would like to read a transcript.

I may send him a contribution.

It was on the Mancow show. It's syndicated across the country.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 08:17 AM

I guess that explains old's anger at corporations...he did all the work.

You bet Titus.

I grew up on a dairy farm.

I joined the military.

I worked in a Chrysler Plant.

I went back to college.

I now own a Ph.D.

Your sense of what corporations are doing, long term, is severely distorted.

Duck Dog

08-26-2005, 08:21 AM

This thread is about oil, however, your statement is loaded with assumptions that are not true.

I am not a fan of multinational corporate globalization.

I am a fan of capitalism.

Adam Smith, as well as T. Jefferson, by the the way, would vehemently disagree with you.

My statement had one assumption, that this country would be a pit without corporate America. T. Jefferson never knew corporate America. And who is Adam Smith?

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 08:21 AM

You bet Titus.

I grew up on a dairy farm.

I joined the military.

I worked in a Chrysler Plant.

I went back to college.

I now own a Ph.D.

Your sense of what corporations are doing, long term, is severely distorted.

Im glad to know

That you are living up to your moniker there, 'slow'...

Ive not said anything about corporations

Rather, you have several times.

All I said was that I knew the market economy would find

Another solution.

Save the corporate nonsense for someone else.

K?

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 08:27 AM

Im glad to know

That you are living up to your moniker there, 'slow'...

Ive not said anything about corporations

Rather, you have several times.

All I said was that I knew the market economy would find

Another solution.

Save the corporate nonsense for someone else.

K?

Titus

Just answer me this. Is the US presently a corporate economy or free market economy?

Your statements concerning free markets are incorrect on their face, because that is not the world in which we live.

Duck:

Adam Smith was an economic philosopher who was the father of free markets.

He is also one of my heroes.

He would roll over in his grave to see what the US "free market" has become.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 08:29 AM

Titus

Just answer me this. Is the US presently a corporate economy or free market economy?

Your statements concerning free markets are incorrect on their face, because that is not the world in which we live.

Duck:

Adam Smith was an economic philosopher who was the father of free markets.

He is also one of my heroes.

He would roll over in his grave to see what the US "free market" has become.

'slow'

Dont care

I realize

That the demand

will cause the market

to respond

and a solution

will be found.

period.

Radar Chief

08-26-2005, 08:33 AM

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

Just for FYI purposes, not everyone agrees that crude oil comes from dead dino’s and that there’s a limited supply.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 08:34 AM

Titus

Your logic is astounding. We don't live in a "free market" econonmy, but the "market" will find a solution?

You really should read Jarad Diamond's Collapse to see just how MANY times the "market" did not come up with a solution.

Ever hear of Easter Island?

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 08:36 AM

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

Just for FYI purposes, not everyone agrees that crude oil comes from dead dino’s and that there’s a limited supply.

I know this theory.

I also know of no reputable gas and oil person or geologist (and I know many) who believes it.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 08:39 AM

Titus

Your logic is astounding. We don't live in a "free market" econonmy, but the "market" will find a solution?

You really should read Jarad Diamond's Collapse to see just how MANY times the "market" did not come up with a solution.

Ever hear of Easter Island?

Yes, my logic must seem mind boggling to you. Let's see if I can follow yours:

The multinationalcorporatemongers are going to run the earth out of oil then after they've sucked every single penny from the idiots that use their oil, they're going to do nothing, they're going to sit and laugh on top of their bags of money while the entire economic system crumbles because there's no other way to power an engine.

Yeah, makes sense to me. That's some great book learnin' logic thar.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 08:46 AM

Not at all.

The problem is physics and geology. Before oil's discovery humans lived thousands of years without a good energy source. Not billions of us, but certainly hundreds of millions.

Oil is unique. There is no other source of energy that has its qualities. Your belief in the "fairy GodMother" which you call technology has no real basis in fundamental science. We might find something to replace oil. We might not.

We have had 184 years of oil. We increased our population to 6.4 billion because of it. The ag revolution that allowed the pop to increase is because of oil.

My point is that there is no guarantee that we will find a replacement. It is prudent, then, that we conserve and develop policy that points toward replacement and not simply believe in the fairy Godmother.

Again, this is the only issue that really matters.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 08:50 AM

My point is that there is no guarantee that we will find a replacement. It is prudent, then, that we conserve and develop policy that points toward replacement and not simply believe in the fairy Godmother.

Again, this is the only issue that really matters.

You go ahead and conserve, there, 'slow. It's ironic to me, at least, that while you rail against corporations you look longling to the government for a solution. Corporations might be evil, I dont really care, but government is far worse.

Nice work, 'slow.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 08:56 AM

Are you dense?

I am calling for each of us to be a part of the solution, including the government and corporations.

Each of us must do his or her part.

Because, I am telling you the absolute truth. This century (and perhaps the next 3/4 decades) will see the end of oil. The President knows this, most geologists know it, and most gas and oil people know it.

That you can't comprehend it, or do not care, says more about you than anyone else. You are whom Mr. Lott is speaking of.

Radar Chief

08-26-2005, 08:57 AM

I know this theory.

You should, I’ve posted it to you before. ;)

I also know of no reputable gas and oil person or geologist (and I know many) who believes it.

I’m not on the “in” like you claim to be, but I do know the Russians have done considerable research on it and appear to be expanding on the theory.
But like I posted previously, it’s just for FYI purposes.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 09:00 AM

I am calling for each of us to be a part of the solution, including the government and corporations.

Each of us must do his or her part.

Ok, comrade.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 09:04 AM

Whatever.

If you ever decide to make a rational argument, let me know.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 09:06 AM

Whatever.

If you ever decide to make a rational argument, let me know.

Take your own advice...

Duck Dog

08-26-2005, 09:11 AM

Are you dense?

I am calling for each of us to be a part of the solution, including the government and corporations.

Each of us must do his or her part.

Because, I am telling you the absolute truth. This century (and perhaps the next 3/4 decades) will see the end of oil. The President knows this, most geologists know it, and most gas and oil people know it.

That you can't comprehend it, or do not care, says more about you than anyone else. You are whom Mr. Lott is speaking of.

"One of the best forecasting records is that of Morris Adelman, a professor at MIT. He has long insisted that oil is not only plentiful, but also that it is a “fungible, global commodity” that will find its way to markets regardless of politics, making nonsense of all the talk about energy security and independence. “Back in 1973, I predicted in The Economist that if the Arabs don’t sell us oil, somebody else will,” he recalls. One reason for his optimism has been the poor quality of information about reserves in most parts of the world. It turns out that there is much more oil hidden away under the earth’s surface than most people imagined back in the 1970s.

Even Exxon says it has learned one crucial lesson from earlier forecasting mistakes: it greatly underestimated the power of technology. Thanks to advances in exploration and production technology, the amount of oil available has increased enormously. Even hitherto uneconomic hydrocarbons such as tar sands are becoming more attractive. Shell’s Mr Moody-Stuart says that such “non-traditional oil will eventually behave like non-OPEC oil or marginal fields do today: if OPEC raises prices too much, these sources will help regulate the price.”

Link (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=497454)

Your turn.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 09:30 AM

....Morris Adelman, a professor at MIT....

You notice it does not say ECONOMICS PROFESSOR. That is what Adelman is. Many economics profs (not all by any stretch of the imagination) believe as Titus does - basically that the fairy GodMother will save us.

Go see what geologists say duck. These are the folks that actually look for the oil.

I would suggest http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/about-ken.html

but I could give you a hundred others.

by the way, does anyone believe economists are scientists? Just wondering.

Duck Dog

08-26-2005, 09:46 AM

What Adelman is saying, is we will find other alternatives, we always have. He also notes that these prognosticators of the middle century couldn't fathom at the time what technology would be like. Much like we can't now and much like Hubbert is failing to mention as well. He calls it, "reinventing those wheels."

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 09:50 AM

Duck

Adelman's "always" is simply not true.

There have been many societies that did not find answers to their problems. Cultures throughout the centuries have collapsed because they would not stop to see what they were doing. From Rome to the SW United States cultures have died, many times because of environmental plunder and resource scarcity.

Nothing makes us exceptional. Nothing makes us special.

Unless we start now, we walk the same path.

Adept Havelock

08-26-2005, 09:58 AM

by the way, does anyone believe economists are scientists? Just wondering.

I usually lump them in with Psychics, Weathermen, Witch Doctors, and Evangelical Healers......and the majority of the "self-help" industry. They all have about the same level of proof for their theories. As Benjamin Disraeli taught us, there are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

As for the "market will find a solution" dreamers.....sure it might, but only after an incredible amount of economic misery, and that's only if we are lucky.

Speaking of Adam Smith, back in my College days, I always enjoyed tweaking the economics/bus. major types with a simple statement: "Did you ever consider that Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations was simply a vastly misunderstood Satirical Essay in the tradition of Johnathan Swifts "A Modest Proposal".
Their expressions were priceless. ROFL

Amnorix

08-26-2005, 10:05 AM

The general populace of this country is selfish, stupid, and spoiled ****ing rotten.

Yes.

Amnorix

08-26-2005, 10:09 AM

Damn straight. Did you mention stupid?

You know, it suprises people to think about this despite the fact that you already know it:

Half the population is dumber than the average person. Let that soak in when you're thinking about letting everyone vote.

Of course, the right to vote is one of the reasons why we fought the Revolutionary War. That whole "taxationw ithout representation" thing.

And, of course, most of the people who actually fought in the war for us were, basically, illiterate farmers.

Notwithstanding your barely concealed disdain for the poorer classes, they have AS MUCH RIGHT to vote as you do. They are citizens of this country, and that's all that is required.

Amnorix

08-26-2005, 10:16 AM

Adam Smith was an economic philosopher who was the father of free markets.

He is also one of my heroes.

He would roll over in his grave to see what the US "free market" has become.

Probably so, but there hasn't been pure, true capitalism anywhere in the world during the entire history of the world. We're closer than anybody else.

His ideals were, well, too idealistic. Just like Karl Marx -- some great theories there, but they need to be adapted when put into practice. Marx's theories had a fundamental error -- they ignored basic human instinct, and were therefore just flat wrong. Smith didn't ignore basic human instict, so he was much closer to having a workable system.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 10:17 AM

As for the "market will find a solution" dreamers.....sure it might, but only after an incredible amount of economic misery, and that's only if we are lucky.

You hope...

Amnorix

08-26-2005, 10:18 AM

'slow'

Dont care

I realize

That the demand

will cause the market

to respond

and a solution

will be found.

period.

This is absurdly idealistic.

Brock

08-26-2005, 10:20 AM

This is absurdly idealistic.

Personally, I think it's realistic. The next energy source is going to be a huge moneymaker. Greed will drive invention, as it always does.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 10:21 AM

This is absurdly idealistic.

I agree...moronic.

Amnorix

08-26-2005, 10:22 AM

Whatever.

If you ever decide to make a rational argument, let me know.

I've been around for a goodly while now and have yet to see one out of him yet, so I wouldn't hold my breath or anything.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 10:22 AM

...Greed will drive invention, as it always does.

Yup.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 10:24 AM

I've been around for a goodly while now and have yet to see one out of him yet, so I wouldn't hold my breath or anything.

Feelings mutual, but thanks.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 10:26 AM

Personally, I think it's realistic. The next energy source is going to be a huge moneymaker. Greed will drive invention, as it always does.

Brock - Your are right. It will be a huge moneymaker.

The kicker is - there is no guarantee it will be found. Greed does not guarantee anything.

Again, civilizations sometimes collapse. We are not exceptional. We should be pointing all of our efforts toward finding that elusive energy source.

Amnorix

08-26-2005, 10:26 AM

Personally, I think it's realistic. The next energy source is going to be a huge moneymaker. Greed will drive invention, as it always does.

Greed certainly will drive invention. And it may be a huge moneymaker, but it may also be at a much higher cost than oil has been.

Historically, oil has been AMAZINGLY cheap. About as cheap as water. I'm not sure we'll find a substitute at that price level.

I'm actually in favor of nuclear plants, if they are profitable, but that's just me. :shrug:

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 10:28 AM

Amnorix:

I also favor building more nuke plants - NOW - I will even take one in my backyard.

(and they all thought I was a crazy greenie)

But they are only one part of the solution. You can't drive with nuke energy.

Radar Chief

08-26-2005, 10:33 AM

Amnorix:

I also favor building more nuke plants - NOW - I will even take one in my backyard.

(and they all thought I was a crazy greenie)

But they are only one part of the solution. You can't drive with nuke energy.

Yet, well ‘till my Flux Capacitor hits the market that is. ;)

Brock

08-26-2005, 10:35 AM

Brock - Your are right. It will be a huge moneymaker.

The kicker is - there is no guarantee it will be found. Greed does not guarantee anything.

Again, civilizations sometimes collapse. We are not exceptional. We should be pointing all of our efforts toward finding that elusive energy source.

I don't share your gloom and doom viewpoint, which you seem to have on any given topic. Yes, someday, the USA may be only a memory. And if that day comes, it will be long after you and I have assumed room temperature.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 10:35 AM

Yet, well ‘till my Flux Capacitor hits the market that is. ;)

Personally, I am developing warp drive.

Lot's of people assure me that the fairy GodMother will make it work.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 10:36 AM

I'm actually in favor of nuclear plants, if they are profitable, but that's just me. :shrug:

*gasp* profit?! Why, then the corporations would take over then and...

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 10:39 AM

I don't share your gloom and doom viewpoint, which you seem to have on any given topic. Yes, someday, the USA may be only a memory. And if that day comes, it will be long after you and I have assumed room temperature.

Brock:

I am not a doomer. I believe we CAN survive this. This does not change one basic geological fact. We will, within the next few decades, run short of oil.

All I am trying to do is up the odds on finding a solution (or solutions) to the problem.

Wishing it away on the belief that "someone will figure out something" is, imo, extremely dangerous.

Brock

08-26-2005, 10:48 AM

Brock:

I am not a doomer. I believe we CAN survive this. This does not change one basic geological fact. We will, within the next few decades, run short of oil.

All I am trying to do is up the odds on finding a solution (or solutions) to the problem.

Wishing it away on the belief that "someone will figure out something" is, imo, extremely dangerous.

First, that's not a fact. Secondly, I don't really think you personally are going to have any impact whatsoever on the outcome. And lastly, I'm not "wishing" for anything. I know for a fact that billions of dollars are being spent on programs like this one. (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/)

Adept Havelock

08-26-2005, 11:17 AM

You hope...

Is such a vague statement worthy of response? Barely, I guess.

You are correct, I do hope that the "market" will magically find a solution before the real economic pain of a too-late solution/switchover to another undetermined energy source ruins too many lives.

There are two types of people in the world. Those that buy insurance, and those that put on rose colored glasses and just hope for the best.

I've always been the former of the two.

Brock, I sure hope you are right about the EOR programs. They will likely postpone the pain a few more decades.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 11:22 AM

First, that's not a fact. Secondly, I don't really think you personally are going to have any impact whatsoever on the outcome. And lastly, I'm not "wishing" for anything. I know for a fact that billions of dollars are being spent on programs like this one. (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/)

Brock:

Read the reports - even the optimists - tell us we are going over the edge with oil by 2030 - 2050. You can sit there and tell me gravity is not a fact and you would still be wrong.

And I can impact the outcome. So can you. Use less oil.

Finally, hydrogen is one hope. Not mine, btw, but still, I am glad to see the research on it up and running. The problem with hydrogen is that it is not actually energy, but a carrier of energy. Second, how can you transport it? But perhaps we will find a way.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 11:25 AM

Is such a vague statement worthy of response? Barely, I guess.

You are correct, I do hope that the "market" will magically find a solution before the real economic pain of a too-late solution/switchover to another undetermined energy source ruins too many lives.

There are two types of people in the world. Those that buy insurance, and those that put on rose colored glasses and just hope for the best.

I've always been the former of the two.

Interesting...where does one buy 'out of oil' insurance and what are the premiums?

There wont be any 'magic' about it, but as time moves on things will change. If you doubt the veracity of the profit motive that much, so be it.

KCTitus

08-26-2005, 11:26 AM

Read the reports - even the optimists - tell us we are going over the edge with oil by 2030 - 2050. You can sit there and tell me gravity is not a fact and you would still be wrong.

The same experts predicted in 1973 that it would happen in 2000...yeah, just move it back a few more years.

Brock

08-26-2005, 11:29 AM

Brock:

Read the reports - even the optimists - tell us we are going over the edge with oil by 2030 - 2050. You can sit there and tell me gravity is not a fact and you would still be wrong.

And I can impact the outcome. So can you. Use less oil.

Finally, hydrogen is one hope. Not mine, btw, but still, I am glad to see the research on it up and running. The problem with hydrogen is that it is not actually energy, but a carrier of energy. Second, how can you transport it? But perhaps we will find a way.

Dude, I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about how much oil there is and how long it's going to last. One, I can quote my own slew of experts that disagree with you, and where does that go? Nowhere. Two, for the reasons I've already hit on, oil will probably be about as relevant as rubber by the time it would have been an issue.

As far as using less oil, there is no question that this country is already moving toward that. The heyday of the SUV is in the rear view mirror, thank God.

oldandslow

08-26-2005, 11:40 AM

The same experts predicted in 1973 that it would happen in 2000...yeah, just move it back a few more years.

No they did not. They did predict the US would hit peak oil, which it did, but you will not do enough research to figure that out.

Titus, it's basic geology. I have been teaching this for years. You can sit there and type whatever you desire, but that simply does not make it so.

htismaqe

08-26-2005, 12:26 PM

Brock:

Read the reports - even the optimists - tell us we are going over the edge with oil by 2030 - 2050. You can sit there and tell me gravity is not a fact and you would still be wrong.

And I can impact the outcome. So can you. Use less oil.

Finally, hydrogen is one hope. Not mine, btw, but still, I am glad to see the research on it up and running. The problem with hydrogen is that it is not actually energy, but a carrier of energy. Second, how can you transport it? But perhaps we will find a way.

Did you really just say that?

You do realize that oil is also not actually energy, but rather a carrier of energy, right?

Adept Havelock

08-26-2005, 12:34 PM

Interesting...where does one buy 'out of oil' insurance and what are the premiums?

There wont be any 'magic' about it, but as time moves on things will change. If you doubt the veracity of the profit motive that much, so be it.

Are you really that obtuse? "Insurance" in this case would be a Manhattan-Project/Apollo Program level investment in renewable energy sources (hydrogen, geothermal, solar, conventional fission, fusion, burning wingnuts and moonbats, etc.). We need to do this 1) Because we cannot keep depending on foreign sources of oil that leads to problems like our current conflict in the ME. 2) Because it might help keep our children/grandchildren from suffering through huge economic upheavels when we do run out of a non-renewable energy source. You might be content to let them deal with it on their own, I prefer to do a little work to better the lot of future generations.

The "profit motive" you keep espousing is also part of the problem limiting this research. Check the lobbying of big oil firms and how it relates to alternate energy investment. You won't find much to support your position.

Finally, I don't doubt the veracity of the profit motive at all. I'm just not naive enough to believe that we will magically get a scientific breakthrough in renewable energy just when we need it, without a serious investment beforehand.

Nothing doom-and gloom about it. It's what people consider putting something away for a rainy-day.

morphius

08-26-2005, 12:42 PM

To be honest I think a lot of the technology could already be there for us to use for the automobile anyway. I have to wonder what kind of milage they could get out of hybrid turbo bio diesel with some extra batteries so that it could be plugged in overnight if the owner wants to save milage.

Of course LA smelling like one giant french fry could be entertaining...

go bowe

08-26-2005, 02:04 PM

i was sorry to see trent lott get torpedoed by that strom thurmond remark...

he was just flattering the old boy, and he got skewered for it and lost the majority leader's job...

Perhaps, in the future we will fix that. But it is where I have my doubts.

DanT

08-26-2005, 02:27 PM

I know this thread will rapidly degenerate into partisan bickering so I'll make my point.

Trent Lott was on the radio this morning and he'd just gotten back from visiting with some of his constituents. One of the things they wanted to complain about was gas prices.

When he asked them about supply, and about drilling US sources of oil, they said "not in my backyard".

When he asked them whether they were willing to conserve they said "you're asking me to get rid of my SUV?"

The problem with this country is not liberal or conservative. It's not political at all.

The general populace of this country is selfish, stupid, and spoiled ****ing rotten.

Trent Lott's constituents are in Mississippi. I'd be interested in knowing how many he met with. Doesn't sound like it could be very many. ;) I doubt there are very many Mississippians who have both these characteristics:

M1) own a SUV and equate "conserving" energy with being asked to give up that SUV

and

M2) have oil in their backyard and are unwilling to drill for it.

Of course, if a Missippian does have oil on their property and doesn't want to drill for it, that's their right. It seems kind of funny, though, that they'd instead want to bother visiting with Trent Lott and complain about high gas prices. That seems rather implausible. Generally, the higher the cost of gasoline, the more incentive owners would have to develop their oil supplies and bring them to market. On the other hand, maybe the constituents Trent Lott met with are trying to generate a higher demand for that oil, so that they can get even more money for it. Very clever of them, if that's true.

I bet it wouldn't be that hard to find a Mississippian who fails to meet at least one of the conditions (M1 and M2) listed above.

I wonder what the people that Trent Lott met with think about him bad-mouthing them on the radio. They probably wouldn't appreciate it. Given that Trent Lott depends on his constituents voting him in, that's another reason for guessing that the total number of constituents whose views he was reporting was not a lot.

DanT

08-26-2005, 02:36 PM

One thing for the pessimists to keep in mind, though, and which might cheer them up is the following:

America has never faced a problem that was so big that Trent Lott couldn't screw it up even more. So, the more he's being tied up in meetings with complaining constituents who don't even know their own interests, the better off we all are. :thumb:

Pitt Gorilla

08-26-2005, 02:39 PM

The general populace of this country is selfish, stupid, and spoiled ****ing rotten.Exactly, except it makes you a "liberal" to say such a thing.

Calcountry

08-26-2005, 02:41 PM

....Morris Adelman, a professor at MIT....

You notice it does not say ECONOMICS PROFESSOR. That is what Adelman is. Many economics profs (not all by any stretch of the imagination) believe as Titus does - basically that the fairy GodMother will save us.

Go see what geologists say duck. These are the folks that actually look for the oil.

I would suggest http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/about-ken.html

but I could give you a hundred others.

by the way, does anyone believe economists are scientists? Just wondering.Because they are. Do you have any idea how much mathematics is required to obtain an advanced degee in economics?

go bowe

08-26-2005, 02:42 PM

how so?

go bowe

08-26-2005, 02:48 PM

Because they are. Do you have any idea how much mathematics is required to obtain an advanced degee in economics?i have always thought of economists as scientists...

there is a great deal of statistical analysis and factual observations involved...

and not all economists are in the business of forecasting...

most are more involved with research and/or teaching, i think...

do we have any economists around here?

htismaqe

08-26-2005, 02:50 PM

Are you really that obtuse? "Insurance" in this case would be a Manhattan-Project/Apollo Program level investment in renewable energy sources (hydrogen, geothermal, solar, conventional fission, fusion, burning wingnuts and moonbats, etc.). We need to do this 1) Because we cannot keep depending on foreign sources of oil that leads to problems like our current conflict in the ME. 2) Because it might help keep our children/grandchildren from suffering through huge economic upheavels when we do run out of a non-renewable energy source. You might be content to let them deal with it on their own, I prefer to do a little work to better the lot of future generations.

The "profit motive" you keep espousing is also part of the problem limiting this research. Check the lobbying of big oil firms and how it relates to alternate energy investment. You won't find much to support your position.

Finally, I don't doubt the veracity of the profit motive at all. I'm just not naive enough to believe that we will magically get a scientific breakthrough in renewable energy just when we need it, without a serious investment beforehand.

Nothing doom-and gloom about it. It's what people consider putting something away for a rainy-day.

Just an FYI, but technically, oil is NOT a "non-renewable" resource. It's just that we consume it at a rate that far outpaces the rate of production, which is measured in 1000's of years.

htismaqe

08-26-2005, 02:52 PM

Trent Lott's constituents are in Mississippi. I'd be interested in knowing how many he met with. Doesn't sound like it could be very many. ;) I doubt there are very many Mississippians who have both these characteristics:

M1) own a SUV and equate "conserving" energy with being asked to give up that SUV

and

M2) have oil in their backyard and are unwilling to drill for it.

Of course, if a Missippian does have oil on their property and doesn't want to drill for it, that's their right. It seems kind of funny, though, that they'd instead want to bother visiting with Trent Lott and complain about high gas prices. That seems rather implausible. Generally, the higher the cost of gasoline, the more incentive owners would have to develop their oil supplies and bring them to market. On the other hand, maybe the constituents Trent Lott met with are trying to generate a higher demand for that oil, so that they can get even more money for it. Very clever of them, if that's true.

I bet it wouldn't be that hard to find a Mississippian who fails to meet at least one of the conditions (M1 and M2) listed above.

I wonder what the people that Trent Lott met with think about him bad-mouthing them on the radio. They probably wouldn't appreciate it. Given that Trent Lott depends on his constituents voting him in, that's another reason for guessing that the total number of constituents whose views he was reporting was not a lot.

Are you really THAT stupid? Seriously, it's not a rhetorical question.

"Give up my SUV" and "not in my backyard" are called FIGURATIVE language. They don't actually have oil wells in their backyards. I can't believe it even needs to be clarified.

Amnorix

08-26-2005, 02:54 PM

i have always thought of economists as scientists...

there is a great deal of statistical analysis and factual observations involved...

and not all economists are in the business of forecasting...

most are more involved with research and/or teaching, i think...

do we have any economists around here?

I believe we do have one. It's that guy I used to get into massive arguments with (not KCWolfman), but I haven't seen him around in quite a while, and I can't bring his moniker to mind.

He was especially passionate on things like the inheritance tax and the like, and I think he was an honest to goodness economist, although obviously WAAAY right. He had an unabashed love for Milton Friedman...

Pitt Gorilla

08-26-2005, 02:54 PM

As far as using less oil, there is no question that this country is already moving toward that. The heyday of the SUV is in the rear view mirror, thank God.
Why was there a "heyday of the SUV?"

htismaqe

08-26-2005, 02:57 PM

Why was there a "heyday of the SUV?"

For the same reason there was a heyday of the Supersized #4.

America is infatuated with the idea that bigger is better.

DanT

08-26-2005, 03:06 PM

Are you really THAT stupid? Seriously, it's not a rhetorical question.

"Give up my SUV" and "not in my backyard" are called FIGURATIVE language. They don't actually have oil wells in their backyards. I can't believe it even needs to be clarified.

Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like you're agreeing with me, then. Trent Lott doesn't have much of a grasp of what is happening even in his own constituents' backyards, huh?

htismaqe

08-26-2005, 03:13 PM

Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like you're agreeing with me, then. Trent Lott doesn't have much of a grasp of what is happening even in his own constituents' backyards, huh?

Jesus man, forget about Lott. All the bashing is making you numb in the skull.

Here it is in literal terms:

"We, the constituents of Mississippi, want to use more US resources instead of Middle-Eastern oil. But we don't want to drill in Alaska or do anything the might hurt the environment."

"We, the constituents of Mississippi, want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but only if it doesn't mean reducing our dependence on oil period. We like driving gas-guzzling cars and running our air conditioners when it's 81 degrees outside."

The whole point of what Lott was saying (and by the way, he did meet with some people that weren't part of his Mississippi consituency) is this:

Americans everywhere are bitching about the price of gas. But they don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to actually fix the problem. He said NOTHING of policy, of how he was going to fix the problem himself, or anything. He was making an OBSERVATION. And one that was rather astute.

Brock

08-26-2005, 03:14 PM

Why was there a "heyday of the SUV?"

I don't know. Why was there a heyday of the Hula Hoop?

Radar Chief

08-26-2005, 03:31 PM

Why was there a "heyday of the SUV?"

Because the EPA regulated emissions from vehicles to the point that only exempt vehicles could have a motor big enough to make decent power, i.e. SUV’s and trucks. That’s why the popularity, that’s where the big motors are.
Always kinda cracked me up that the whiny bunny huggers cried to the point that they helped create the legislation then cried even more ‘bout the results of that legislation.

vailpass

08-26-2005, 03:34 PM

Who cares what the Chiefs starting QB has to say about gas prices?

DanT

08-26-2005, 04:30 PM

Jesus man, forget about Lott. All the bashing is making you numb in the skull.

Here it is in literal terms:

"We, the constituents of Mississippi, want to use more US resources instead of Middle-Eastern oil. But we don't want to drill in Alaska or do anything the might hurt the environment."

"We, the constituents of Mississippi, want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but only if it doesn't mean reducing our dependence on oil period. We like driving gas-guzzling cars and running our air conditioners when it's 81 degrees outside."

The whole point of what Lott was saying (and by the way, he did meet with some people that weren't part of his Mississippi consituency) is this:

Americans everywhere are bitching about the price of gas. But they don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to actually fix the problem. He said NOTHING of policy, of how he was going to fix the problem himself, or anything. He was making an OBSERVATION. And one that was rather astute.

I tried to do what you asked in the first paragraph, but then you kept bringing him up. That ain't right. That's like telling someone to stop thinking about a purple elephant riding a red mo-ped and then, after a few seconds, telling him to think about the same elephant popping a wheelie. ;)

DanT

08-26-2005, 04:37 PM

...

The general populace of this country is selfish, stupid, and spoiled ****ing rotten.

I don't agree. America is loaded with generous, smart and good people. They're all over the place.

DanT

08-26-2005, 04:49 PM

Titus

Just answer me this. Is the US presently a corporate economy or free market economy?

Your statements concerning free markets are incorrect on their face, because that is not the world in which we live.

Duck:

Adam Smith was an economic philosopher who was the father of free markets.

He is also one of my heroes.

He would roll over in his grave to see what the US "free market" has become.

We had an entire 1-quarter course at the University of Chicago on "The Wealth of Nations". I took it my senior year. One of my favorite quotes from it was:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., ed. Edwin Cannan, 1904. [Online] available from http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html ; accessed 26 August 2005; Internet.

That's a great book, sometimes funny and always smart.

DanT

08-26-2005, 05:26 PM

Are you really THAT stupid? Seriously, it's not a rhetorical question.

"Give up my SUV" and "not in my backyard" are called FIGURATIVE language. They don't actually have oil wells in their backyards. I can't believe it even needs to be clarified.

By the way, the answer to your first question is "I don't know how stupid THAT stupid is, but I probably am at least THAT stupid if THAT stupid is defined by something I said." The question looks rhetorical by itself, but I'll assume your next sentence can be taken on good faith. I make it a point to try and answer any non-rhetorical good-faith questions asked of me, and I interpret that very broadly. ;)